6.  The applicant was born in 1984 and is serving a prison sentence in the Ivanovo Region.
7.  On 2 January 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter.
8.  On 5 January 2002 the prosecutor's office authorised the applicant's detention pending investigation. The applicant's detention was extended on several occasions. The parties did not submit copies of the relevant court orders. According to the Government, when deciding on the applicant's pre‑trial detention, the domestic authorities noted that he had been charged with very serious offences, including two counts of manslaughter, and that he might abscond or interfere with administration of justice if released.
9.  On 26 June 2003 the Regional Court authorised the applicant's detention pending the study of the case-file. In particular, the court noted:
“... [the applicant] is charged with several criminal offences, including very serious ones. It is still necessary to keep him in custody. The court does not consider it possible to apply any other restrictive measure ...
The materials submitted show that ... at school [the applicant] received satisfactory references concerning his character. He had a criminal record. In May 2001 he was found guilty by the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo of robbery, extortion and theft and received a conditional sentence. His criminal record was erased by virtue of the amnesty decree. He also has a history of administrative misdemeanours. The references concerning his character obtained from the place of his residence are negative. His parents cannot control his behaviour. His conduct is socially dangerous. He has [repeatedly] failed to comply with internal regulations at the remand centre.
In such circumstances, the court concludes that the applicant should be detained pending the study of the case-file ...”
10.  On 22 April 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo concluded the trial of six defendants. The District Court found the applicant guilty of trespassing and manslaughter and sentenced him to nine years and four months' imprisonment.
11.  On 25 May 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal. The applicant and F., one of his co-defendants, sought supervisory review of the judgments.
12.  On 23 May 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation granted their request for supervisory review.
13.  On 22 June 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the judgments of 22 April and 25 May 2004 in respect of the applicant and F. and remitted the matter to the lower courts for fresh consideration. It further extended, without specifying the grounds, the defendants' detention pending trial until 22 September 2005.
14.  On 12 July 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo received the case file.
15.  On 28 July 2005 the District Court scheduled the hearing of the case for 11 August 2005 and dismissed a request by the defendants for release. In particular, the court noted:
“F. and [the applicant] are charged with ... a very serious criminal offence against life and health.
In view of the above, the restrictive measure used in respect of F. and [the applicant] should remain unchanged.”
16.  On 11 August 2005 the District Court stayed the proceedings owing to F.'s counsel's failure to appear. On 8 September 2005 the Regional Court found the decision of 11 August 2005 unlawful and quashed it on appeal.
17.  The decision of 28 July 2005 was upheld on appeal by the Ivanovo Regional Court on 25 August 2005.
18.  On 1 December 2005 the District Court issued an order authorising the defendants' pre-trial detention until 12 April 2006. In particular, the court noted:
“[The court] does not discern any grounds, as established by law, to change or lift the restrictive measure earlier applied in respect of [the defendants] since the circumstances taken into account by the court at the time the restrictive measure was applied have not ceased to exist. [The defendants] are charged with a very serious criminal offence ...”
19.  On 12 January 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 1 December 2005 on appeal. The court dismissed, inter alia, the applicant's complaint that his detention after 23 September 2005 had been unlawful. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“The supervisory-review court quashed the verdict and subsequent judicial decisions in respect of [the applicant] and F. and decided to remit the criminal case for fresh consideration to the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo. In accordance with Resolution of the Constitutional Court of Russia no. 4-P as of 22 March 2005, it also decided to extend the pre-trial detention in respect of [the applicant] and F. for three months. This decision remained in force until the preliminary hearing of the case [by the trial court].
When the trial court received the case-file, it considered the issue of the [defendants' pre-trial detention] in accordance [with applicable laws]. Pursuant to Article 255 § 2 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the pre-trial detention in respect of [the applicant] and F. shall be calculated as of the date when the trial court received the case-file, that is, as of 12 July 2005. As a general rule, the period of detention in question shall not exceed six months, notably 12 January 2006. Article 255 § 3 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that the court may, upon expiry of the six-month period, extend the defendants' pre-trial detention if the defendants are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences. Each extension in that case cannot exceed three months. The Resolution of the Constitutional Court of Russia as of 22 March 2005 confirmed that Article 255 §§ 2 and 3 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure was not in breach of the Russian Constitution. The [defendants'] complaints in respect of [the alleged unlawfulness of their pre-trial detention] are based on an erroneous interpretation of the applicable rules of criminal procedure.”
20.  On 2 March 2006 the District Court further extended the defendants' pre-trial detention until 12 July 2006, noting as follows:
“[The court] does not discern any grounds, as established by law, to change or lift the restrictive measure earlier applied in respect of [the defendants] since the circumstances taken into account by the court at the time the restrictive measure was applied have not ceased to exist. [The defendants] are charged with a very serious criminal offence ...”
21.  On 25 April 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 2 March 2006 on appeal.
22.  On 7 June 2006 the District Court extended the defendants' pre-trial detention until 12 October 2006. The court reiterated verbatim the reasoning of the previous detention orders. On 4 July 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 7 June 2006 on appeal.
23.  On 21 August 2006 the District Court found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.
24.  On 12 October 2006 the Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal.